[go: nahoru, domu]

Jump to content

Satoshi Kanazawa: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Undid revision 455279545 by Jorgenev (talk) this is decidedly wrong - Kanazawa was chastised by a large number of colleagues - not from the feminist blogosphere
Line 98: Line 98:


=== Race and attractiveness ===
=== Race and attractiveness ===
In May 2011, he published an article in ''Psychology Today'' that explored why black women had been rated less attractive than those of other races in the [[National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health]] and hypothesized that the rater's preference for physical markers of estrogen levels, which he asserted were lower in blacks, was the culprit.<ref>Satoshi Kanazawa. "Why Are Black Women Less Physically Attractive Than Other Women?". [[Psychology Today]], 5/15/2011</ref> Subsequent critical independent analysis of the results showed that the difference in assessed attractiveness held for three of the four data sets in the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health and that there was only a statistically significant race difference in younger women and that it disappeared by early adulthood.<ref>[http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/beautiful-minds/201105/black-women-are-not-rated-less-attractive-our-independent-analysis-the-a] Psychology Today: Black Women are Not (Rated) Less Attractive!: Our Independent Analysis of the Add Health Dataset</ref> His explanation has generally been considered incorrect as there is no evidence that black women have lower levels of estrogen than other groups.<ref name=sciam>[http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=the-datas-in-satoshi-kanazawa-is-a-2011-05-23] The Data Are In Regarding Satoshi Kanazawa</ref> The article caused outrage in the [[feminist]] [[blogosphere]] leading to the creation of petitons on [[change.org]] and [[facebook]] to have Kanazawa sacked.<ref>Angus Hutchison. [http://uk.ibtimes.com/articles/149060/20110520/black-women-attractive-psychology-today-satoshi-kanazawa-blog-lse.htm "'Black women less attractive' blogpost: Anger grows".] ''[[International Business Times]]'', 5/20/2011.</ref> In the aftermath other scientists, including other evolutionary psychologists, sought to distance themselves from it Kanazawa's work and published criticisms.<ref>[http://www.epjournal.net/filestore/kanazawa-statement.pdf "Kanazawa Statement"] at EP Journal.net</ref> ''Psychology Today'' pulled the article and on May 27, 2011, issued an apology to anyone who had been offended and stated that they had not reviewed Kanazawa's article before its publication,<ref>[http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/brainstorm/201105/apology-psychology-today "An Apology from Psychology Today"] Kaja Perina, May 27, 2011, Psychology Today</ref> and stated that they would police more strictly for controversial content in the future.<ref name="dismissal" />
In May 2011, he published an article in ''Psychology Today'' that explored why black women had been rated less attractive than those of other races in the [[National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health]] and hypothesized that the rater's preference for physical markers of estrogen levels, which he asserted were lower in blacks, was the culprit.<ref>Satoshi Kanazawa. "Why Are Black Women Less Physically Attractive Than Other Women?". [[Psychology Today]], 5/15/2011</ref> Subsequent critical independent analysis of the results showed that the difference in assessed attractiveness held for three of the four data sets in the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health and that there was only a statistically significant race difference in younger women and that it disappeared by early adulthood.<ref>[http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/beautiful-minds/201105/black-women-are-not-rated-less-attractive-our-independent-analysis-the-a] Psychology Today: Black Women are Not (Rated) Less Attractive!: Our Independent Analysis of the Add Health Dataset</ref> His explanation has generally been considered incorrect as there is no evidence that black women have lower levels of estrogen than other groups.<ref name=sciam>[http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=the-datas-in-satoshi-kanazawa-is-a-2011-05-23] The Data Are In Regarding Satoshi Kanazawa</ref> The article was extremely negatively received by various groups of scientists, including those who work in evolutionary psychology, who pointed out the errors in Kanazawa's work and sought to distance themselves from it<ref>[http://www.epjournal.net/filestore/kanazawa-statement.pdf "Kanazawa Statement"] at EP Journal.net</ref>. ''Psychology Today'' pulled the article and on May 27, 2011, issued an apology to anyone who had been offended and stated that they had not reviewed Kanazawa's article before its publication,<ref>[http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/brainstorm/201105/apology-psychology-today "An Apology from Psychology Today"] Kaja Perina, May 27, 2011, Psychology Today</ref> and stated that they would police more strictly for controversial content in the future.<ref name="dismissal" />


In September 2011, Kanazawa apologized to LSE director Judith Rees, saying he "deeply regrets" the "unintended consequences" of the blog and accepting that "some of [his] arguments may have been flawed and not supported by the available evidence". An internal LSE investigation found that Kanazawa had brought the school into disrepute and prohibited him from publishing in non-peer-reviewed outlets for a year.<ref>Jack Grove, [http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=417449&c=1 "LSE scholar admits race analysis was 'flawed'"] ''Times Higher Education'', 15 September 2011</ref>
In September 2011, Kanazawa apologized to LSE director Judith Rees, saying he "deeply regrets" the "unintended consequences" of the blog and accepting that "some of [his] arguments may have been flawed and not supported by the available evidence". An internal LSE investigation found that Kanazawa had brought the school into disrepute and prohibited him from publishing in non-peer-reviewed outlets for a year.<ref>Jack Grove, [http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=417449&c=1 "LSE scholar admits race analysis was 'flawed'"] ''Times Higher Education'', 15 September 2011</ref>

Revision as of 22:15, 12 October 2011

Satoshi Kanazawa
Born (1962-11-16) November 16, 1962 (age 61)
Scientific career
FieldsEvolutionary psychology
InstitutionsLondon School of Economics

Satoshi Kanazawa PhD (born November 16, 1962) is a Reader in Management at the London School of Economics. His work uses evolutionary psychology to analyze social sciences such as sociology, economics, and anthropology.[1] Some of his work dealing with race and gender has been controversial and led to his dismissal from writing for Psychology Today.

Kanazawa has been a fierce opponent of what he considers political correctness.[2] Much of his work is not considered mainstream evolutionary psychology.[3] In response to ongoing controversy, his current employer, the London School of Economics, has prohibited him from publishing in non-peer-reviewed outlets for 12 months. [4]

Work

Kanazawa has co-written three books with Alan Miller:

  • "Why Beautiful People Have More Daughters: From Dating, Shopping, and Praying to Going to War and Becoming a Billionaire— Two Evolutionary Psychologists Explain Why We Do What We Do" ;
  • "Why Men Gamble and Women Buy Shoes: How Evolution Shaped the Way We Behave"; and
  • "Order by Accident: The Origins and Consequences of Conformity in Contemporary Japan".

He also wrote a blog, The Scientific Fundamentalist, for Psychology Today until his dismissal in 2011.[5]

Kanazawa uses the term Savanna principle to denote the theory that societal difficulties exist because the human brain evolved in Africa hundreds of thousands of years ago, a drastically different environment from today's urban, industrial society.[6]

In 2003, in an article in the Journal of Research in Personality, he claimed to show that scientists generally made their biggest discoveries before their mid-30s, and compared this productivity curve to that of criminals.[7]

Attractiveness and sex of offspring

In 2006, he published an article in the Journal of Theoretical Biology, claiming that attractive people are 26% less likely to have male offspring.[8][9]

In a letter to the editors regarding Kanazawa's claim that attractive people are more likely to have daughters,[10] Columbia statistician Andrew Gelman points out that a correct interpretation of the regression coefficients in Kanazawa's analysis is that attractive people are 8% more likely to have girls, an error that Kanazawa acknowledges.[11] Gelman argues that Kanazawa's analysis does not convincingly show causality, because of possible endogeneity as well as problematic interpretations of statistical significance in multiple comparisons. While Kanazawa claims that the former error is "merely linguistic" and that he addressed the latter two in his initial article,[9] Gelman maintains that his original criticism remains valid.[12]

Race and attractiveness

In May 2011, he published an article in Psychology Today that explored why black women had been rated less attractive than those of other races in the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health and hypothesized that the rater's preference for physical markers of estrogen levels, which he asserted were lower in blacks, was the culprit.[13] Subsequent critical independent analysis of the results showed that the difference in assessed attractiveness held for three of the four data sets in the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health and that there was only a statistically significant race difference in younger women and that it disappeared by early adulthood.[14] His explanation has generally been considered incorrect as there is no evidence that black women have lower levels of estrogen than other groups.[15] The article was extremely negatively received by various groups of scientists, including those who work in evolutionary psychology, who pointed out the errors in Kanazawa's work and sought to distance themselves from it[16]. Psychology Today pulled the article and on May 27, 2011, issued an apology to anyone who had been offended and stated that they had not reviewed Kanazawa's article before its publication,[17] and stated that they would police more strictly for controversial content in the future.[5]

In September 2011, Kanazawa apologized to LSE director Judith Rees, saying he "deeply regrets" the "unintended consequences" of the blog and accepting that "some of [his] arguments may have been flawed and not supported by the available evidence". An internal LSE investigation found that Kanazawa had brought the school into disrepute and prohibited him from publishing in non-peer-reviewed outlets for a year.[18]

Following the controversy, an open letter was signed by 68 evolutionary psychologists distancing themselves from Kanazawa and defending evolutionary psychology, writing "The principle of applying evolutionary theory to the study of human psychology and behaviour is sound, and there is a great deal of high-quality, nuanced, culturally-sensitive evolutionary research ongoing in the UK and elsewhere today".[19] In response, an international team of 23 scientists published a letter in Times Higher Education defending Kanazawa's work.[20]

Health and intelligence

In 2006, Kanazawa published a paper suggesting that the poor health of people in some nations is the result not of poverty, but of lower intelligence.[21] In the British Journal of Health Psychology, George Ellison wrote that the theory is based on flawed assumptions, questionable data, inappropriate analysis and biased interpretations. Ellison wrote that Kanazawa mistook statistical associations for evidence of causality and falsely concluded that populations in sub-Saharan Africa are less healthy because they are unintelligent and not because they are poor.[22] Kevin Denny wrote similar criticisms regarding the IQ data and stated that African Americans should have similar IQs when compared to the sub-Saharan African population and that Kanazawa should have measured the distance between areas in a topographical fashion.[23]

References

  1. ^ Dr Satoshi Kanazawa, LSE, retrieved 6 September 2006
  2. ^ Psychology Today: "If the truth offends, it’s our job to offend", 2008
  3. ^ Scott Barry Kaufman, "Satoshi Kanazawa Does Not Speak for All of Evolutionary Psychology", Huffington Post, 18 May 2011
  4. ^ "LSE lecturer Dr Satoshi Kanazawa tells of race blog 'regret'" "BBC, 16 September 2011"
  5. ^ a b May 2011 "Psychology Today Agrees to remove Controversial Author Satoshi Kanazawa from Website; Implements New Policies to Prevent Inflammatory Content". Color of Change. 1 June 2011. {{cite news}}: Check |url= value (help)
  6. ^ Kanazawa, Satoshi (2004) The Savanna principle. Managerial and decision economics, 25 (1). pp. 41-54. ISSN 0143-6570
  7. ^ Satoshi Kanazawa (2003). "Why productivity fades with age: The crime–genius connection". Journal of Research in Personality. 37 (4): 257–272. doi:10.1016/S0092-6566(02)00538-X. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  8. ^ "Beautiful people have girls" John Von Radowitz, News.com.au, 2 August 2006
  9. ^ a b Kanazawa, Satoshi (January 7, 2007). "Beautiful parents have more daughters: A further implication of the generalized Trivers–Willard hypothesis (gTWH)" (PDF reprint). Journal of Theoretical Biology. 244 (1): 133–140. doi:10.1016/j.jtbi.2006.07.017. PMID 16949101.
  10. ^ Gelman, Andrew (April 7, 2007). "Letter to the editors regarding some papers of Dr. Satoshi Kanazawa" (PDF Reprint). Journal of Theoretical Biology. 345 (3): 597–599. doi:10.1016/j.jtbi.2006.11.005. PMID 17184794.
  11. ^ Kanazawa, Satoshi; Reyniers, Diane J. (2009). "The role of height in the sex difference in intelligence" (PDF Reprint). American Journal of Psychology. 122 (4): 527–536. Note 2
  12. ^ Gelman, Andrew; Weakliem, David (2009). "Of Beauty, Sex and Power" (PDF Reprint). American Scientist. 97 (3): 310–316. doi:10.1511/2009.79.310.
  13. ^ Satoshi Kanazawa. "Why Are Black Women Less Physically Attractive Than Other Women?". Psychology Today, 5/15/2011
  14. ^ [1] Psychology Today: Black Women are Not (Rated) Less Attractive!: Our Independent Analysis of the Add Health Dataset
  15. ^ [2] The Data Are In Regarding Satoshi Kanazawa
  16. ^ "Kanazawa Statement" at EP Journal.net
  17. ^ "An Apology from Psychology Today" Kaja Perina, May 27, 2011, Psychology Today
  18. ^ Jack Grove, "LSE scholar admits race analysis was 'flawed'" Times Higher Education, 15 September 2011
  19. ^ "Kanazawa Statement" at EP Journal.net
  20. ^ "Sinned against, not sinning" 16 June 2011, Times Higher Education
  21. ^ Kanazawa, Satoshi (November 11, 2006). "Mind the gap... in intelligence: Re-examining the relationship between inequality and health" (PDF reprint). British Journal of Health Psychology. 11 (4): 623–642. doi:10.1348/135910705X69842. PMID 17032488.
  22. ^ Ellison, George T. H. (May, 2007). "Health, wealth and IQ in sub-Saharan Africa: challenges facing the 'Savanna Principle' as an explanation for global inequalities in health". British Journal of Health Psychology. 12 (2): 191–227. doi:10.1348/135910707X180972. PMID 17456282. {{cite journal}}: |format= requires |url= (help); Check date values in: |date= (help)
  23. ^ Denny, Kevin (December, 2009). "On a dubious theory of cross-country differences in intelligence" (PDF). Journal of Evolutionary Psychology. 7 (4): 341–346. doi:10.1556/JEP.7.2009.4.2. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Template:Persondata